SilentMonk's page

I have some questions I'd like clarification on.

1:The character with no ranged weapon, why didn't he just engage the enemy in melee?

2:Also what was happening to the rest of the caravan, were people getting injured/dead?

3:Why were they on the roof of the wagon, and how was the thin fabric supporting their weight?

4:Also you mentioned that there were ranged weapons in the caravan, why didn't the melee character pick one up if he wasn't going to engage in melee?

5:What level is everyone? I don't really need classes, but I'm guessing nobody is a caster, or at least they aren't primarily so.

6:What were you trying to accomplish exactly by splitting the party, and by allowing two separate quests to be pursued?

7:Have you already kicked they guy out, or have you just decided to? Because if you already did, this whole thread is moot, he won't come back.

I should mention that a lot of these questions I'm merely asking to get some context for what happened.

1. The player didnt want to engage in melee. The setting was foggy so their was no idea of how many enemys thier was. He wanted to wait until the enemys apeared before making a decision that could end up ending his life.

2. With the poor visibility the rest of the caravan activities was unkown. In this encounter everyone made it through with minimum damage.
3. The wagons were basicly created to be mid evil armored cars so thief was no cloth roof it was wooden.
4.Yes their was two crossbows on each side of the wagon. But they was apart of the wagon and could not be moved from thier position. They was mounted on a pedestal of sorts out looking a window.
5.Low levels no spell casters, one player was LV 3 the second Lv2 the new guys was lv1.
6.Nothing was planned for a separate quests. I leave my players to thief freedom as to how thier charecters would react and do at certain situations. The two players that went thier seperate ways chose to go that way instead. I left it up to them if they saw thier characters joining or not and they chose a different path (wich did nothing to inturupt the story or campaign.)
7. No both players have not been asked to leave as of yet.That why I made this post I'm just wanting to know if I'm doing the right thing?

You got 3 min to put that into paragraphs.....

ya sorry about that lol, I also see this is the wrong forum for this subject. Is thier anyway I could remove it?

Hello, im recently a new GM/DM. For the past year ive been hosting games for 5 players recently we lost a member to school and work and ive recently added a new player. The first couple sessions went by smoothly and everyone had a blast. Our last game caused a bit of disturbance. Before I begin let me explain how I run games. Im really laid back and a lot of things involving rules ill let slide if it has something to do with role playing. The group im hosting hasn't been playing as long as me with the exception of two members who have been playing since a young age. I try to explain to my players to come up with a concept of a character instead of worrying about what's on their paper in the end in my opinion making a character everyone will love to see is a lot better then how many enemy's they can kill (in my opinion). But I leave it all to the players how they go about creating. Last session I split the party (it was a caravan three of the pcs got excepted and two pcs were denied by a paladin who was running the caravan) which ik the golden rule don't split the party but I left it two the last two players to either go a separate path or maybe sneak onto the caravan I left the choice to them. In the end the two left behind pcs took a different quest. They traveled to a different town for work which on the way they ran into some wolves which had just made a fresh kill. The wolves protecting their kill attacked the pcs and this is were the trouble began. The two pcs killed two of the three wolves and the last had dragged one of the pcs to the ground. The last wolf was focusing on the pc on the ground until the pc still standing attacked it. After the attack I said the wolf turns his attention to the pc left standing and attacks. Out of no were the newest player begins chiming in interrupting that the wolf wouldn't have done that and if it was the last one it would simply run away. I responded politely that this was how I saw the wolf acting. Needless to say the pcs defeated the wolf and continued. Later after the caravan started with the two old players and the newest member the troubles did not stop. The caravan was attacked by goblins. The newest player and one of the old members stayed inside a wagon and shot crossbows at the attackers. The crossbows they found in the wagon. Only the new player had a bow of his own. The last pc stayed on the roof with his sword waiting to make sure non of the attackers made it to the roof. The two players inside the wagon kept berating the pc on the roof to get off the wagon and kill the attackers. Note this wasn't role playing or in character talk. The players inside the wagon was calling the pc on the roof several names and used several comments that I can not repeat in this post. At the end of combat the new player continued berating the pc on the roof to why he didn't have a bow and how it was "stupid not to have a range weapons". Now if it was me yes id try to give my character a ranged weapon IF that's how I saw the character I created. This pc did not give his character a range weapon simply because he didn't want his character to have one it was not what he envisioned his character doing or using. I feel that what the new player did was rude and very disruptive to the game. I feel that instead of berating the character he should have approached the pc who didn't have a bow and either offered him his, found him one or offered him the one within the wagon instead of interrupting the game to say how stupid he was. Now in regards of the older player that was also chiming in with the out of character taunts and degrading language, I have warned him once of his behavior already. The vote of the other players is to remove them from our group immediately and I agreed. Im just wondering if their is anything I should do or anyone's opinions first before I make the final decision.

Sorry I just came across this thread I don't know if the issue has been solved or not but im gonna go ahead and throw in my two cents. As a DM/GM I stress on my players to play how they see their character being, now on the subject of paladins they are ussualy lawful good charecters (lawful good is not lawful nice think of how batman acts). If I had a player playing a good paladin and he wanted to randomly kill people aka murder then I would have to step in and say "hey im sorry but paladins are devoted to justice and letting the law take its course" with that being said if the paladin is after say a criminal and for some reason cannot bring him in (after the paladin trys to have the criminal surrender or come quietly ect ect) and then I may see the paladin subjecting the criminals punishment then and their, now different scenerios might change this it really depends on the player and the character they created. Now the subject of the player doesn't see murder as evil, does the player see this or the character? if its the player maybe he/she does need a therapist but if its the character seeing this as not evil then maybe its his charecters personality. However murder is still murder and is still classified as an evil act.